Which country had the best load outs in WWII? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Which country had the best load outs in WWII?


Metal Angel
07-25-2012, 21:33
I'm not a huge WWII buff, but the firearms sure do interest me! So who do you think had the best weapons? It seems like Germany's arsenal left nothing to be desired, besides having a slightly heavy influence of bolt actions. Russia sure had some great firearms, if not quite enough. But, in my opinion, I think the US had the best set of standard issue weapons.

I'm curious what other people who have more knowledge of the subject think!

Lior
07-25-2012, 21:43
Easy question Sir. The country that had "the best implement of battle ever devised".

Metal Angel
07-25-2012, 21:52
Easy question Sir. The country that had "the best implement of battle ever devised".

Can't argue with the Garand!

Andrewsky
07-25-2012, 21:55
It's not possible to say really.

The U.S, Great Britain, and Germany certainly would be the top 3.

Boats
07-25-2012, 22:02
I'm not a huge WWII buff, but the firearms sure do interest me! So who do you think had the best weapons? It seems like Germany's arsenal left nothing to be desired, besides having a slightly heavy influence of bolt actions. Russia sure had some great firearms, if not quite enough. But, in my opinion, I think the US had the best set of standard issue weapons.

I'm curious what other people who have more knowledge of the subject think!

The answer is elusive because of doctrinal issues. The German platoon was built around the LMG, with the riflemen in support.

The early Soviet units were built around whatever could be delivered to the front. Later, entire brigades might only have subguns as a "Shock Army." These imbalanced units were sometimes wildly successful and other times decimated. The Soviets eventually settled on a mix of weapons and tactics not dissimilar to the US Army.

The Germans were shocked by the SVT-40 and the PPSh-41 when encountered in force. So much so that they took to retooling the Soviet subgun to fire 9mm and tried a series of semiautomatic rifles to up their mobile firepower. For the entire war, the Nazis tried to replace the Kar98k in general infantry service. The STG-44 was too little, too late. Their small arms approach was found wanting, especially in defense.

The Japanese were hopeless on small arms, though early war Arisaka rifles were quite nice and came with ridiculous bayonets. They were badly beaten in "pre-war" Manchuria by the Soviet combined arms philosophy in the late 30s, and following 1942, the Marines and Army regularly wiped the floor with them. The Japanese SMGs make the Sten and the M3 "Grease Gun" look like master craftsmanship.

I could go on, but this topic bores me.

Angry Fist
07-25-2012, 22:09
Easy question Sir. The country that had "the best implement of battle ever devised".
Yeah, Fat Man and Little Boy.

TxGun
07-25-2012, 22:22
Easy question Sir. The country that had "the best implement of battle ever devised".

I agree. I'm a big 98K fan, but the Garand gave the U.S. GI a significant advantage over his German or Japanese counterpart in terms of the amount of accurate firepower he could lay down in any given time period. Add the fact that the Garand was just as accurate, or more so, as the competition's bolt rifles and that advantage became even more definitive. Germany definitely built elegant weapons with generally top-level craftsmanship (until the war overcame their industries), but putting a rugged, accurate, semi-auto battle rifle in the hands of the average soldier/Marine was a game-changing coup for the U.S. military. Of course, the U.S. military was far better supplied than their opponents in every conceivable area as the war wore on. And...were also supplying the bulk of the British and initial Soviet war efforts at the same time. Just amazing what our industry accomplished...then.

pck50
07-25-2012, 22:32
Germany 30 Luger & 9MM Parabellum


I'm not a huge WWII buff, but the firearms sure do interest me! So who do you think had the best weapons? It seems like Germany's arsenal left nothing to be desired, besides having a slightly heavy influence of bolt actions. Russia sure had some great firearms, if not quite enough. But, in my opinion, I think the US had the best set of standard issue weapons.

I'm curious what other people who have more knowledge of the subject think!

427
07-25-2012, 22:49
When it comes to small arms, the germans, but they ran out of everything.

countrygun
07-25-2012, 22:50
Even if we agree that the US had the best gear I don't think it would be fair just to call it "good" as a final answer.

I am of the opinion that the US, and actually the Russians as well, best suited their tactics to their weapon's potentials.

I just noticed, when doing some studying in my younger days, that for an army/military based on "Blitzkrieg" Hitler did a real disservice to the concept by sticking the majority of his troops with a bolt-action rifle simply because he liked it. Even the British had a higher rate of fire bolt gun.

Likewise,as was mentioned the Japanese really did a disservice to their soldiers in equipping them.

The American tactics took advantage of the fire and movement the M-1 and the BAR gave a squad.

IMO the americans and the British made the best use of their "Manpower" in tactics and matched them with the right weapons for the time.

427
07-25-2012, 23:00
Americans fought and beat the germans using the basic blitzkrieg tactics the germans used to overrun most of europe -CAS, armor, armored infantry and lots of logistical support.

m2hmghb
07-25-2012, 23:44
The Brits had the best LMG in the bren gun, but their mediums were unweildy and heavy. Their tnaks sometimes had Besa machine guns in 7.92x57. The Lee-Enfeild was a better faster firing rifle then the Kar 98K but it suffered compared to the M1 Garand. The Sten was a fair weapon if treated properly.

The Germans had the only general purpose machine guns, but the MG42 ran through a LOT of ammo fast so you had to keep it supplied with ammo and change the barrels. The MP40 was probably the better of the crude stamped machine pistols but the Kar 98K really limited them. In addition the Germans didn't have a ground deployed heavy machine gun, unlike the Americans, Brits, and Russians. The STG44 was a good weapon, but as they say too little too late. The FG42 was another innovation that would have worked well but it was just too complex, it was kind of like the select fire M14-low weight full powered rifle round in full auto.

The Americans had the best infantry rifle with the fastest rate of fire, decent sub machine guns, a decent light machine gun, but the Browning M1917 and M1919 were not the best with their slow rate of fire and heavy weight. The M1919A6 was an attempt to make a true light machine gun by putting a bipod shoulder stock and standard rifle trigger on the rifle but it was unweildy and clumsy. The American heavy machine gun was the best used in WW2. They also had a decent "assault" rifle in the M1 Carbine, although it wasn't fully automatic the use was related to that of the STG and the SKS.

The Russians had a fair rifle in the Nagant, not as smooth as the Lee or the Kar but it worked. The tokarev was better then the Gew 41-43 but not as good as the Garand. The PPS 43 and the PPSH41 were both good weapons but they were not typically used in an integrated unit which left the soldiers screwed if they were engaged from a longer distance. Their LMG was fair as well, the DPM wasn't a bad lmg but it wasn't a great one either. There were several problems with them, especially with the large pan magazines used. Their MMG for half the war was the WW1 standard Maxim. It was replaced by a better one the Goryunov around 1943. The SKS was a good carbine but it was introduced too late to play a large role. They also had a good heavy machine gun in the DSHK. They also had some of the better sniping techniques and used the bolt action and semi automatic anti tank rifles to good effect.

Each nation had their own strengths and weaknesses and they typically played to them to good effect.

Decguns
07-26-2012, 06:52
I prefer the Russian SVT-40 to the Garand. Smooth cycling and near zero recoil. The Germans seemed to like it too since they adopted & issued the captured SVT rifles. The Russians just couldn't make enough of them. Only a handful ever made it into the USA before Clinton's 1998 trade agreement killed imports, so most guys will never get to experience the "big" SKS.

I'm a big fan of the Enfield, Mauser, Mosin, Arisaka & M1903A3. I have dozens of them. But I would have to say the best bolt action rifle of WWII is probably the French MAS 1936. Too bad they were never fired and only dropped once.

HexHead
07-26-2012, 07:14
Of course, the U.S. military was far better supplied than their opponents in every conceivable area as the war wore on. And...were also supplying the bulk of the British and initial Soviet war efforts at the same time. Just amazing what our industry accomplished...then.

Well, we really had an advantage in that our factories weren't being bombed on a regular basis. Look at all the T-34s the Soviets produced, once they moved the factories behind the Urals.

John Biltz
07-26-2012, 21:33
Best rifle US Garand
Best submachine gun is a dog fight.
best LMG/Squad automatic weapon British Bren Gun
best medium machine gun German, either one of them was better than the rest of the world and when everyone made their next MG it was based on them.
Best Heavy machine gun US M2. Not even a question there, we're still using it.

Andrewsky
10-04-2012, 23:23
The Brits had the best LMG in the bren gun, but their mediums were unweildy and heavy. Their tnaks sometimes had Besa machine guns in 7.92x57. The Lee-Enfeild was a better faster firing rifle then the Kar 98K but it suffered compared to the M1 Garand. The Sten was a fair weapon if treated properly.

The Germans had the only general purpose machine guns, but the MG42 ran through a LOT of ammo fast so you had to keep it supplied with ammo and change the barrels. The MP40 was probably the better of the crude stamped machine pistols but the Kar 98K really limited them. In addition the Germans didn't have a ground deployed heavy machine gun, unlike the Americans, Brits, and Russians. The STG44 was a good weapon, but as they say too little too late. The FG42 was another innovation that would have worked well but it was just too complex, it was kind of like the select fire M14-low weight full powered rifle round in full auto.

The Americans had the best infantry rifle with the fastest rate of fire, decent sub machine guns, a decent light machine gun, but the Browning M1917 and M1919 were not the best with their slow rate of fire and heavy weight. The M1919A6 was an attempt to make a true light machine gun by putting a bipod shoulder stock and standard rifle trigger on the rifle but it was unweildy and clumsy. The American heavy machine gun was the best used in WW2. They also had a decent "assault" rifle in the M1 Carbine, although it wasn't fully automatic the use was related to that of the STG and the SKS.

The Russians had a fair rifle in the Nagant, not as smooth as the Lee or the Kar but it worked. The tokarev was better then the Gew 41-43 but not as good as the Garand. The PPS 43 and the PPSH41 were both good weapons but they were not typically used in an integrated unit which left the soldiers screwed if they were engaged from a longer distance. Their LMG was fair as well, the DPM wasn't a bad lmg but it wasn't a great one either. There were several problems with them, especially with the large pan magazines used. Their MMG for half the war was the WW1 standard Maxim. It was replaced by a better one the Goryunov around 1943. The SKS was a good carbine but it was introduced too late to play a large role. They also had a good heavy machine gun in the DSHK. They also had some of the better sniping techniques and used the bolt action and semi automatic anti tank rifles to good effect.

Each nation had their own strengths and weaknesses and they typically played to them to good effect.

The part in bold is quite interesting. The Brits were making their own 7.92x57mm before the war started. They believed it wouldn't present too much of a logistical problem since they were only intended for tankers.

Clutch Cargo
10-05-2012, 00:41
Easy question Sir. The country that had "the best implement of battle ever devised".

(off in the distance) ping

Diesel McBadass
10-05-2012, 07:51
Overall americans had all the bases covered, with the (former) greatest battle implement ever devised (get over the garand nostalgia, it was surpassed many times) then the bar, thompson, etc.

The germans had the best lmg in the mg42, it was deadly, and the sturmgewhere was the best assult carbine, a revolutionary weapon.

Japanese stuff sucked.

m2hmghb
10-05-2012, 07:54
Overall americans had all the bases covered, with the (former) greatest battle implement ever devised (get over the garand nostalgia, it was surpassed many times) then the bar, thompson, etc.

The germans had the best lmg in the mg42, it was deadly, and the sturmgewhere was the best assult carbine, a revolutionary weapon.

Japanese stuff sucked.

You forgot the M1 M2 and M3 carbines. They were the US version of the STG. The M3 had an infrared night sight similar to the vampyre system the Germans used.

MajorD
10-05-2012, 08:17
consider getting and reading a book "shots fired in anger"
by George. It is a "gun guys" chronicle of his pacific tour of duty in the Army in WW 2 and he addresses the plusses minuses of all the weapons on both sides (obviously focusing on Jap not german guns)
One of the biggest issues, considering the logistic challenges in the islands, was the weight of equipment. We still fight this today.
Basically he said that the only problem with U.S. weapons with the exception of the m1 carbine is that they were all too heavy and long. Give a soldier a light easy to carry weapon with light easy to carry ammo.
While the garand was surely the king of the battlefield in all theaters both it and its ammo was rather heavy (although comparable to most primary rifles and ammo in use at the time)
He did have a very high regard for the nambu light machine gun.

raven11
10-05-2012, 10:43
I shot the Type 99 rifle and I didn't think it was that bad, it was just a five round bolt action rifle. I think why they get a bad rap is if your in jungle where your shooting pretty close to your enemy you want a 8 rnd semi auto vs a 5 rnd bolt gun. and contrary to video games the Japanese were never able to mass produce and issue SMG at the rate Americans did.

The Japanese weapons couldn't be that bad , they were kicking butt in the Pacific before we were able to overcome the initial defeats

AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 11:02
The Japanese weapons couldn't be that bad , they were kicking butt in the Pacific before we were able to overcome the initial defeats


It wasn't their weaponry at the infantry/man level kicking out butts, but rather then fighters/tanks/arty they brought to bear, that our troops had no hope of countering.

ilgunguygt
10-05-2012, 11:26
I think that the thing to remember was that the Allies won because of thier utilization of the weapons, not the weapons themselves. Whether or not they were the best, they used them to the best of thier potential. Thinking this way, perhaps the best loadout was the US Marine, Army GI, etc.......

m2hmghb
10-05-2012, 11:35
I shot the Type 99 rifle and I didn't think it was that bad, it was just a five round bolt action rifle. I think why they get a bad rap is if your in jungle where your shooting pretty close to your enemy you want a 8 rnd semi auto vs a 5 rnd bolt gun. and contrary to video games the Japanese were never able to mass produce and issue SMG at the rate Americans did.

The Japanese weapons couldn't be that bad , they were kicking butt in the Pacific before we were able to overcome the initial defeats

It's not that the Japanese had good weapons, it's that they were better trained, and better equipped then those they went against. The Chinese, Koreans and in the early part of the war the American Army in the Philippines.

For instance the US Army in the Philippines could not get resupplied with food, medications, and ammunition. At one point I recall hearing about a cavalry unit having to kill their horses for food. In that instance they were also outnumbered and the Japanese had tanks, better planes, and a good line of supply.

The Arisaka is a good bolt action rifle, there are articles stating that the pre war actions are some of the strongest made. The problem lies in the fact that they couldn't produce enough nor could they adapt. The Arisaka had sights that would flip out so you could lead an aircraft, not necessary at all and it bogged down production. The machine guns were overcomplicated and ill suited for jungle fighting, hell one of them had the infantry soldiers dropping their 5 round stripper clips into the hopper to feed the machine gun. Another had an oiler to oil the cartridge cases so they could be extracted smoothly, the problem was it gunked up the gun. Another problem was there could be 3-4 different rifle and machine gun calibers in use by the infantry at any one time, 6.5, 7.7, 7.7 rimmed, 7.7 semi rimmed.

390ish
10-05-2012, 12:25
Finland

arclight610
10-05-2012, 12:49
No country's sidearm even approaches the knockdown power of the Japanese Nambu

AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 12:58
No country's sidearm even approaches the knockdown power of the Japanese Nambu



:rofl:


Ah, the vaunted 380! If only mere mortals could wield your power.

jph02
10-05-2012, 13:55
I think that the thing to remember was that the Allies won because of thier utilization of the weapons, not the weapons themselves. Whether or not they were the best, they used them to the best of thier potential. Thinking this way, perhaps the best loadout was the US Marine, Army GI, etc.......
Actually, the Allies won because they had unlimited resources. Plain and simple. That said, there's no doubt method of using weapons played a role in effective application of combat power and the outcomes of various battles.

I think the pinnacle weapons of WWII were the STG-44, since it was the first true assault rifle, and the MG-42, the fundamental design upon which most significant modern LMGs are based.

RWBlue
10-05-2012, 13:55
Which country had the best load outs in WWII?

I see most people here things guns and ammo when they read your question. I see it from a broader prospective.

First we should probably decide if we are looking at what they really had or what they were suppose to have. And are we talking at the beginning of the war or the end of the war.

Second thing we are confronted with the limitations of a soldier.
1. Speed and manoeuvrability.
2. Gun up/firepower.
3. Now days this would be defensive capability. In WWII I would consider this the ability to carry other non-fighting equipment.

A person just carrying a handgun can move fast, but will not be useful in a long range or heavy fight and will starve because he doesn't have food with him. He will get shot because he doesn't have an entrenching tool. He will....

A person loaded heavy with guns and ammo can lay down a lot of fire and continue to shoot for a long time. But can not run to the fight or manuver in the fight or run away. He will starve because he doesn't have food with him. He will get shot because he doesn't have an entrenching tool. He will....

A person who has all the other gear will be comfortable as when he is home, but can not run away or fight.

The Russian cold weather gear was the best in the war. I saw a program several years ago on the subject. They dressed people in the German cold weather gear and the Russian cold weather gear. Then stuck them in a freezer. The guys in German gear were freezing fairly fast. The Russian guys were happy as could be.

The flip side, lets look at the American jump suit issued to the Marines island hopping. This is fine until the trots kicks in and then you end up sh.....in the uniform. The American uniforms also rotted in those conditions and faded.

The Russian bolt rifles take the most abuse and continue to run.

The Americans Garand is the most accurate and would be best for long range shooting. They also had issues with corrosive ammo when they first came out. They also had issues freezing up in the winter.

The Germans are accurate enough and have a great sight for hunting.

The Enfield was probably the best rifle at the beginning of the war. A trained British soldier can fire how many aimed shots in a minute?

Handguns, I love the look of the Luger, but the 1911 and Browning highpower are better guns in general. Accuracy would go to the Luger, but the magazines meant reliability was just not there and then get them in the mud....

I have more, but not the time....

raven11
10-05-2012, 14:08
Finland

As much as I love me VKT M39 I have to respectfully disagree. While the Finns made( i guess rebuilt is the proper word) their own rifles like the M27, M28 ,and M39 the majorty of soldiers still had the M91 mosin and some 91/30 and carbines they captured during battle but for the rear line troops they had everything from carcanos, Arasaka, and Swedish mausers

The latest rifle in their Army at the time the M39 (which is sitting in my safe) has a receiver off a 1894 Tula , a bolt head from Remington , a bolt body from a newer Tula and a barrel from Belgium.

It would be like going to war with the best rifle your country has, a rifle built from three or four different rifle that your enemy made

RonS
10-05-2012, 18:50
US and the UK for rifles.
Light and medium MG, Germany.
HMG, US.
Best kitchen knives, Japan.

Not including limited issue weapons. Doesn't matter how good it is if you only have enough for show or for elite troops.

Deaf Smith
10-05-2012, 20:50
Just read Lt. Col. John George's book, "Shots Fired in Anger" to see what a squad with Garands would do to a platoon armed with bolt action rifles.

Yes the squad could take on the whole platoon and win. Be it Mausers, Ariskas, Nagants, or Carcanos. The ONLY bolt rifle to have a chance would have been the British .303 Enfields. But the Garand was still even better than that.

Deaf

Deaf Smith
10-05-2012, 20:53
No country's sidearm even approaches the knockdown power of the Japanese Nambu

Yes it does! My fabulous Italian Beretta 1934. Mine was made in 1941 for the Italian Army. Yes 9mm Kurts. Powerful mojo!

But in real life, the only realistic challenger to the 1911 in WW2 was the P35 Browning High Power, used by SAS commandos, Chinese, and, to a limited extent, the Nazis.

Deaf

adamg01
10-05-2012, 21:40
No country's sidearm even approaches the knockdown power of the Japanese Nambu

The Nambu was extremely unreliable. The best mass produced small arm of WW2 is obviously the Garand. The most innovative design was the STG44. It is the grandfather to the modern assault rifle and greatly influenced the AK47 aka "The Worlds Most Prolific Killer". :supergrin:

Diesel McBadass
10-05-2012, 23:02
The m3 carbine, i believe, was korea issue, not ww2, and the m1 carbine sucked anywa, no power.

The Garand was not the most accurate, hell there 3moa about the same as a (gasp) ak. they were able to shoot significantly faster though and had good sights for practical accuracy.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 23:19
The m3 carbine, i believe, was korea issue, not ww2, and the m1 carbine sucked anywa, no power.

The Garand was not the most accurate, hell there 3moa about the same as a (gasp) ak. they were able to shoot significantly faster though and had good sights for practical accuracy.

The M-3 and M-3A1 were the .45 cal "Grease Guns" of WWII and later.

The full auto version of the M-1 carbine was the M-2 of Korea.

The M-1 carbine was meant as a substitute for the 1911a1 to soldiers of MOS 's other than "Rifleman". As a substitute for the pistol it was quite effective in that it enabled a soldier who had been trained on a rifle to be aremd with something handier than a pistol without a great amount of extra training or none at all for the weapon. The hit percentages when they were employed were doubtlessly much higher than would have been possible with a pistol.


The carbine was aslo employed, optimistically as a "night sniper" with the IR scope and that may be the "M-3" to which you refer.

Atually, given the IR capabilities of the day not a bad compromise. I had quite a conversation with a soldier who used one in Korea

RWBlue
10-05-2012, 23:35
the m1 carbine sucked anywa, no power.


This is pretty much a myth. No, it is not a 30-06, but it has the power of a 357mag at 100 yards. IMHO, I would not want it in north Africa, but it would have been my preferred weapon for in the cities of Europe, South East Asia and Island hopping.

kirgi08
10-05-2012, 23:48
The M-3 and M-3A1 were the .45 cal "Grease Guns" of WWII and later.

The full auto version of the M-1 carbine was the M-2 of Korea.

The M-1 carbine was meant as a substitute for the 1911a1 to soldiers of MOS 's other than "Rifleman". As a substitute for the pistol it was quite effective in that it enabled a soldier who had been trained on a rifle to be aremd with something handier than a pistol without a great amount of extra training or none at all for the weapon. The hit percentages when they were employed were doubtlessly much higher than would have been possible with a pistol.


The carbine was aslo employed, optimistically as a "night sniper" with the IR scope and that may be the "M-3" to which you refer.

Atcually, given the IR capabilities of the day not a bad compromise. I had quite a conversation with a soldier who used one in Korea


The bolded above was meant for the phillipines that served with Fertig.'08.

G19freak
10-06-2012, 00:12
logistics logistics logistics----everything else is secondary

Having full bellies --warm feet and plenty of ammo------ fuel for tanks and planes are far more important to whatever gun that was in their hands

AK_Stick
10-06-2012, 00:18
logistics logistics logistics----everything else is secondary

Having full bellies --warm feet and plenty of ammo------ fuel for tanks and planes are far more important to whatever gun that was in their hands




Well, there are lots of times where units were cut off/surrounded, and simply out fought the enemy, till supply lines were able to be re-established. So while critical, logistics, can, and often does take a 2nd to the weapons actually doing the fighting.